Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > November > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhoops. The general who asked the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ question was a Hillary Clinton supporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
CNN’s Anderson Cooper is admitting that his cable network goofed last night when it included a video question about the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy from a retired National Guard general — who is a Hillary Clinton Supporter.
About 40 video clips from YouTube users drove Wednesday’s Republican debate in Florida, selected from among about 5,000 submitted. Bloggers were on the hunt this morning for other questioners with Democratic sympathies as well — supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama.
In a clip now posted on YouTube, Cooper said former Reagan education secretary Bill Bennett, a CNN contributor, was the first to let him know that the retired general, Keith Kerr, was part of a gay-and-lesbian steering committee for Clinton.
“We don’t know if he’s still on it, we’re trying to find out that information. Certainly had we had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question — if we had used it at all,” Cooper said.
This morning, CNN followed with a more specific mea culpa from David Bohrman, the network’s senior vice president and executive producer of the debate.
“We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the general’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate,” Bohrman said.
“Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate. Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself,” the statement from CNN continued.
In this June press release, Kerr is listed as part of the LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee.
The Clinton campaign pointed us to video clip, also posted this morning on YouTube, in which CNN correspondent John Roberts asked Kerr whether the Clinton campaign was involved in formulating his question.
“Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own,” Kerr said.
Kerr was apparently known to CNN as a gay activist. The conservative web site NewsBusters noted that the network had featured him in an article in December 2003.
The problem for CNN wasn’t necessarily the question posed by Kerr, which was among thousands submitted via YouTube:
“My name’s Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.
“I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”
But after Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney responded, Cooper asked Kerr — who was among several questioners flown in by YouTube for the event — if he thought the Republicans had responded to his question.
“With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,” Kerr said — and followed that comment with a short speech.
You can read a transcript of the exchange, provided by CNN, on the jump.
(ON VIDEO) BRIGADIER GENERAL KEITH KERR (RET.): My name’s Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.
I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.
COOPER: I want to point out that Brigadier General Keith Kerr is here with us tonight. I’m glad you’re here.
(APPLAUSE)
Again, the question to Congressman Hunter.
HUNTER: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.
The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.
They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: I want to direct this to Governor Huckabee.
Thirty seconds.
HUCKABEE: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that’s what is at issue. And that’s why our policy is what it is.
COOPER: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, “openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Do you stand by that?
ROMNEY: This isn’t that time. This is not that time. We’re in the middle of a war. The people who have…
COOPER: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?
ROMNEY: I’m going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of…
COOPER: Is that a change in your position…
ROMNEY: Yes, I didn’t think it would work. I didn’t think “don’t ask/don’t tell” would work. That was my — I didn’t think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn’t make any sense to me.
ROMNEY: And you know what? It’s been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.
COOPER: So, just so I’m clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?
ROMNEY: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
COOPER: All right. General Kerr is — as I said — is here.
Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us.
Did you feel you got an answer to your question?
KERR: With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: What do you feel you did not…
KERR: American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.
For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.
Today, “don’t ask/don’t tell” is destructive to our military policy.
KERR: Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion…
COOPER: Wait, the mike is — you’ve lost me. Is the microphone not working? Please, just finish your — what is your question?
KERR: Not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.
COOPER: OK. Senator McCain…
KERR: And we’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.
COOPER: I appreciate your comments.
Senator McCain, I want to give you 30 seconds. You served in the military.
MCCAIN: General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.
Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it’s working.
Services »
Comments
By Scott
November 29, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
This does not surprise me at all. If he was a plant, it was no secret to CNN. They are famous for this kind of behavior. Some of the questions they chose were laughable. They would never have asked Democrats such stupid questions. It made CNN look foolish and also showed their media bias. But, that’s business as usual at CNN.
By rustylynn
November 29, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Did CNN or Hillary fly this guy in from California for the Florida Republican debate?
CNN should know better after the six “undecided” floor questioners during last week’s Dem Debate were all exposed by bloggers as being committed activists. Meanwhile CNN’s buddies in the mainsteam media will continue to accuse Fox News of being a biased network. CNN is called the Clinton News Network for good reason.
By Nick
November 29, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
This is such a non-story it’s not funny. I was delighted to see the way Gov. Romney handled this on Fox this morning by simply stating that he didn’t really care who asked him questions. Why shouldn’t Republicans answer questions from Democrats? I am a Democrat and I watched the entire debate, is that not allowed either? They are after all running for Presidents of the United States and not the Republican Party. I am sure any of the Dem. candidates would be happy to answer questions from someone connected with a Republican campaign. Well, that is except Sen. Clinton as she prefers to not have to answer questions.
By Tony
November 29, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
He is an American asking a question whats the big deal? If you support one candidate your not allowed to ask any of the other candidates a question?What nonsense.
By Ray Robion
November 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
But it isn’t the fact that he asked a legitimate question that matters. It is that he was allowed to make a 2 or 3 minute speech denouncing the candidates as a member of the Hillary clinton campaign that matters. Just like dems never got it that Bill clinton’s affair isn’t what got him impeached, it was the fact that he lied to a court that caused that and got his law licence revoked.
By Ray Robion
November 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
But it isn’t the fact that he asked a legitimate question that matters. It is that he was allowed to make a 2 or 3 minute speech denouncing the candidates as a member of the Hillary clinton campaign that matters. Just like dems never got it that Bill clinton’s affair isn’t what got him impeached, it was the fact that he lied to a court that caused that and got his law licence revoked. www.rayrobison.com
By rustylynn
November 29, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
Why doesn’t CNN let REPUBLICANS question their own candidates during a primary debate.
BTW, it gets much worse, seems many of the questioners last night were Democrat activists… including the Lead toy questioner and the Abortion questioner who can be seen in other youtube postings wearing her Edwards t-shirt. How unproffessional of CNN.
By RightOnPeachtree
November 29, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
Nick, this was a GOP primary debate. I could understand if that question was asked in a general election debate, but the primary debate is not the place for it. Virtually no GOP Primary voters care about the topic (which, BTW, has been asked and answered again and again and again). That question was just a wet kiss from CNN to liberals. I guess they have to play to their base, too, though.
By Scott
November 29, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
Tony, You’re right. The thing that bugs me is that CNN does this a lot. My objection is not that a Hillary supporter asked a question. It’s that CNN acts surprised. If it was revealed a Republican plant asked questions at a Democratic debate there would be total outrage! I’d love to hear the Dems answer that question as well. Especially Hillary since it was Bill Clinton who, when campaigning for the Presidency, promised to allow ANYONE regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military. Then in 1993 he approved the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So much for campaign promises. Nothing any candidiate says at this point matters. They don’t have ALL the power when they get in office. It’s all a big compromise.
By Jennifer
November 29, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
This was not a VIDEO question but the man was live in the audience, as anyone who actually watched the debate would know. Another top notch reporting job AJC!!!
By Edward
November 29, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
So are all the GOP candidates now wanting to have the Bush privilege of allowing only GOP plants asking questions, like their own Jeff Gannons?
How dare they have to answer a question from an actual American voter that isn’t a sycophant!
By Pete
November 29, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Nick, the democrats refused to go on Fox and debate so I would assume that they are afraid to answer tough questions from the other side. The Republican candidates have been on CNN and MSNBC, taking questions from networks that don’t necessarily see eye to eye with them.
By Who cares?
November 29, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
Who really cares who this individual supports? When every American goes to the polls to cast their single vote for whichever candidate they choose, they can base it on a debate they saw, an ad they viewed, an interview, the results of a Ouija board reading, or eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I could care less who the question came from. I care more about the quality of the question and it’s a pretty good one! For the record, I don’t forsee myself as a likely voter for Hillary Clinton although I really have no clear choice in any candidates, either party, at this time. Bottom line: the question seems valid…that’s all that really ought to matter. Non Issue
By Big Pipe
November 29, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Another great reporting job the ultimate of openly but dare not admit Pro Democratic media. The AJC is as hypocritical as is CNN in its blind support of the Left Wing verbage. I would like in some point in my life to see a politically neutral media outlet that promotes an individual mindset instead of what we have today which is Big 4 spewage of blatently left belief pouring out of ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN
By An Inquiring Mind
November 29, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
If y’all want the rest of the story, visit michellemalkin.com.
As it turns out, the “unbiased” questioners from last night’s debate also included people who have already declared their support for Edwards and Obama.
So, Jim and Bob, tell us our favorite fairy tale again. You know, the one about the “objective” mainstream media.
By gttim
November 29, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Funny how with people complaining about planted questions, there was still very few serious questions asked about issues that matter to most Americans. Nothing on healthcare? That debate, which is not the proper term since it was merely a press conference, was sad.
Besides, Bush and Cheney only answer planted questions that have already been cleared by there staffs. Why shouldn’t government officials have to answer questions from all Americans?
CNN (Corporate News Network) sold out long ago. It pushed GOP press releases, Michael Jackson updates and missing white women stories. It has been many years since any CNN reporter did any reporting of merit.
By Reality
November 29, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
You republicans are hypocrites to the very end…. You want to ask Democrat candidates questions, but you don’t want Democrats asking Republicans questions???? Too funny.
By mum
November 29, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
If the questioner was a “plant” one could object, but it seems the best questions come from the other side in each case. If you as a candidate can’t intelligently answer an answer that’s not a sof’ question from your own folks, you obviously aren’t up to the job. They should absolutely do more of this. I for one would rather see them answer questions they don’t expect, rather than the same tired questions they ask every time. For the most part, these debates are a yawn, but Huckerbee was surprising last night…and I’m not a supporter.
By Scott
November 29, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
HELLO Jennifer. Obviously YOU did not watch the debate. If you had, you would know that Keith Kerr asked a video question. After it was answered Anderson Cooper introduced him sitting in the audience. Anderson asked him if his question was answered to his satisfaction. Mr. Kerr was then allowed to give a speech for several minutes. This was obviously planned by CNN. Anderson should rethink letting himself look foolish by CNN.
By Mike
November 29, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Reality - Who said that Republicans want to ask Democrat candidates questions? Please point out the specific poster that you feel to be hypocrutes. Or are you just an angry liberal who just like to spout off stupid and baseless attacjs on anyone who does not share your narrow view of the world?
You are missing the point. We want debnate questions to come from likely GOP voters. The CNN and MSNBC democratic debates were full of left leaning questions. GOP voters want a debate to have questions on matters that we care about, not questions from pre-screend liberals and Clinton campaign staffers.
Feel free to resume your mindless hatred of Republicans.
By Will Jones
November 29, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
The gay National Guard general is the “tip of the iceberg.” Historically the Guard is state and local communities’ “Courthouse Crowd,” judges, lawyers, politicos, connected businessmen, and their gay assistants, parading around in “army uniforms” and stopping traffic for washed out bridges during heavy weather. The irony of Bush’s false war predicated on his 9-11 treason is that when he was cheated into the closed Guard in ‘68 it was strictly “Vietnam-free” and a haven for pro athletes with money connections and high officials’ “sons.”
Now the Guard and Reserve, many of whose flag rank officers are of the Vietnam dodge era, is pouring their blood into the sand of Iraq because draft-dodger Bush fired the real Army Generals who insisted on doing his treasonous false-war correctly. Look at Petraeus’ background as a soldier: took a bullet in a live fire exercise, broke both hips in a paratroop jump, is identified by his commanding officer as an “ss-kissing, little chickenhit, and now, with that identified talent, plays make-believe that the known closet-queen cheated into the White House by the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court should feel like an actual “man.”
None of the candidates has any integrity, including McCain and Ron Paul. If they did they’d speak to the false-elite Bush serves and the 9-11 he committed.
Viz. “The New Pearl Harbor,” by PhD Emeritus Professor of Logic, Ethics and Theology, David Ray Griffin spells it out for any patriot to read: Bush did 9-11. Obama’s “It’s not on the level” comment on “The Daily Show,” last August (video on Comedy Central) is the only allusion any major candidate has made arguably pertinent to the biggest challenge facing us as The People. If we continue permitting criminals, fakers, hypocrites, and perverts to hold high office in Our Land, it will not bode well for America.
We all know and can easily prove Bush did 9-11 and his father killed John Kennedy. It’s easy to see whoever killed John Kennedy killed Dr. King. More of the same will never secure the Founders’ posterity for our children’s children. The House must be swept clean: Death for Treason.
By CantonGuy
November 29, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
The thing to remember about this is that the Republicans are all standing up there, on CNN, answering questions and having a debate when even Clinton staff are asking the questions for CNN (and also answering their own questions, taking time from the panel, etc.)
Whatever you think about that, you have to remember that the Democrats refused to have a debate on FoxNews because they were afraid of bias. The Dem candidates are afraid of FoxNews, the Republicans stand up and answer questions from CNN. If the Dems are too scared to face CNN, how confident are you in their ability to face the difficult problems of the modern world?
By kreedham
November 29, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Who cars if he is affiliated with a campaign as long as it’s a relevant question. If it’s meant to trap or disparage a candidate…then of course it should be used.
By kreedham
November 29, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
Sorry I was typing too fast. I meant who “cares” not who cars and also that if it is to trap or disparage a candidate it “shouldn’t” be used.
By Nick
November 29, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
I would agree that they should have attended the Fox debate, just as the Republicans should have attended Tavis Smiley’s debate. Why give up a chance to get out your message to anyone of any party. If a person can’t answer questions from any American at any time then how can they unite the country, which is what we so desperately need.
By Tiny Tim
November 29, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
SO who let Gen. Dumbledork into the GOP debates last night?
By Will Jones
November 29, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
The best and easiest way for the People to unite again is to read “The New Pearl Harbor,” and recognize that Bush and Cheney committed 9-11 and have gotten away with because they serve the same corrupt power elite stealing our wealth promoting illegal immigration, sending factories and good jobs overseas, debasing our currency, and remaining amnesiac over the obvious domestic treason which killed Kennedy and King to keep us in Vietnam.
By Keith Helms
November 29, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
This was without doubt a Clinton set up. While I certainly do not support Bush on most issues, I cannot support Hillary Clinton for anything, even dog catcher in Hades. There are many good Democrats who are Christians, who denounce Socialism and Communism, and who refuse to support the practice of Abominations such as homosexuality, prostitution, and abortion. Why can’t they nominate one of them instead of the supporters of the above like Clinton and Obama.
By Steve
November 29, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
Why is this a big deal? If one of these guys is elected, he will be the president of EVERYONE, not just those people who supported them or who vote republican. I think this General, as an American citizen, has the right to ask questions of someone that could be his president. I don’t get the controversy in that.
I also think it’s laughable that two of the candidates think our soldiers are strong enough to march into Baghdad, but would be reduced to a ball of nerves if they had to stand next to a gay person. Talk about not respecting the troops!
By JimW
November 29, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
What a blunder for the Hillary campaign! She must be potrayed as a moderate, and this only makes clear how far left she is. A serious and foolish mistake.
By Steve
November 29, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Is this really a leftie position? Almost all of our allies in the world are not longer debating this- gays serve openly. We are becoming a joke around the world- not joining our Allies in the Kyoto Treaty, not providing health care, invading countries without a real threat. I consider myself a conservative, but these new conservatives are scary. If being a leftie means being rational, then so be it.
By gttim
November 29, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
None of the Democratic candidates were scared of Fox News. They only agreed that Fox News is not a legitimate news channel. Fox News is propaganda for the right. Why should they appear on and give any kind of legitimacy to Fox?
And no CNN is not a lefty news organization. CNN sold out to corporations many years ago- and huge corporations are all GOP supporters, trying to insure cheap labor, more corporate welfare and ridiculously low taxes. CNN has not done serious news in many years, other than some reporting done by their international news arm.
If you believe any of those softball questions is what actual lefties would have actually asked if given the chance, you are crazy. I would love to see any of those candidates sit down with a real journalist and answer serious questions about the important issues our country is facing. However, it is not going to happen.
By Matt
November 29, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
I agree that the question was totally relevant – regardless to what side of the issue a person may fall. While people continue to rant that it is a democratic plant in an audience secretly placed there by Hillary Clinton, no one has seemed to pause long enough to ponder the thought that the conservative republicans would like to know what side of the issue the candidate sides with as well – and that is their right to know as well.
I myself find it saddening that this issue still reverberates throughout the nation – I can imagine that it wasn’t too long ago that someone used the same “it might disrupt the cohesion of the unit” argument to argue against African American’s serving in the military. If someone were to use that argument today – they would surely be “hung out to dry” by political leaders as well as media and mainstream public – and RIGHTLY so. How is being “uncomfortable” serving side by side with a homosexual any different than being uncomfortable serving next to individuals of varying races, religions, or gender? Yet the latter 3 are protected. It’s just an example of society’s ongoing hypocrisy and bigotry towards ideals that are foreign to ones own environment. Someone will surely try to use the argument that sexuality is a “choice” – which is totally false. While I agree someone can’t control their race or gender – which religion (if any) an individual chooses to practice is TOTALLY choice.
Last time I checked, a persons sexuality had nothing to do with their capacity for patriotism, their ability to fire a weapon, or their ability to lead. No one is asking for the hold world to hold hands with all the “gays” and sing kum-bay-yah – just simply acknowledge that it is a right just as any other human right that deserves equal protection under the law.
By Concerned in Decatur
November 29, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
Its always funny to see voters complain about mud slinging and then engage in mud slinging themselves. The only thing I have taken from this page of postings is a whole lot of polarization and not much unification. With emotions running high and distrust toward both parties, shouldn’t we be united as voters in our desire for integrity. We should be demanding candidates with standards of ethics and the ability to realistically see the situation in their future. Instead we are forced to settle for options that are bad, worse, and still worse. I am very concerned with the fact that I don’t like any of the candidates in any of the parties. At this point you would have to be Plato’s philosopher king to have a chance at leading this country.
By lovelyliz
November 29, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
Just how much like the rest of us normal people is Grover Norquist?
And why was his question included?
By Will Jones
November 29, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
The People must rule through The Constitution. The regime in power regards it a “just a piece of paper,” and plays word games around torture while dishonoring us and the Constitution all over the world. What moral authority does a police officer or traffic court judge have when we all know criminals are ruling in Washington? Look at the adjudicated treason of outing a CIA undercover officer and a rich man gets away with a, to him, chump change fine? Did we not learn to live by principles handed down from holy documents and righteous ancestors? Is America now just one more Mafia neighborhood in the Bronx? It is time to turn over the “compost pile” of politics and recognize that the false-elite must go…and be punished and expropriated for their crimes against The People.
By Churchill
November 29, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
I am shocked. Shocked. That CNN had no idea that liberal hacks infiltrated the you tube debates. There were also Obama and Edwards plants. But if you think about, if CNN started purging liberals, with biases, they would have no one left to run their low rated shows. The debate last night was a joke and so is CNN.
By Straight Shooter
November 29, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
To those clearly deranged types who think a person’s sexual orientation would have no effect on his/her leadership in the military, then you’ve not been in the military.
I’m cool if you’re q ueer but I don’t want you feelin’ free to approach me if I happen to drop the soap in the community shower. It just so ruins the whole esprit de corps of the unit - not to mention you’ll get your a@@ kicked forever more.
Most gays are pretty limp-wristed anyway. That feature may be useful in firing a weapon but in hand-to-hand combat it wouldn’t be particularly effective. And, you really cant’ b!itch slap the enemy to death or ridicule his “outfit” as a means of attack.
So, to all our many fine gay friends outside the military - stay there.
By rustylynn
November 29, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
Will Jones. I, and everyone else who sees your name, usually ignore anything you take time to type. But I will break ranks and actually address you for a second…
You sir are an idiot.
Anyone who thinks Bush would kill his own countrymen has to be so far out of touch from reality that they are insane. I am so glad that you have taken time to post your lunatic ideas as to assure me that I’m on the right side.
Let the whole world know that Will Jones has spilled his guts, exposing his crazy world view, and that I, rustylynn, am his polar opposite, photo negative, and idealogical reverse! Liberals, this guy belongs to you, and I’m glad, glad, glad!
By Concerned in Decatur
November 29, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
The year is 5007. Aliens from across the universe have discovered the remains of what was once a green and thriving planet. Among the piles of steel rubble and stinking debris an extra-terrestrial excavation site has been erected. As loads of crap are removed, several crumbling pieces of parchment are revealed - the single most important discovery on the site. A line among others reads “Man is not the enemy of man but through the medium of a false system of government” - Thomas Paine. With a look of wonder the newcomers begin the painstaking task of deciphering what it means - hoping for a clue about this dead civilization.
By Churchill
November 29, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
Please do not agitate Will Jones. Yes, he’s nuts and a perfect example of “Liberal Logic,” but please do not encourage him. He takes up so much space that it makes it difficult to read posts with some sense. That said. Hey, Will. Pope ,Good. Bush, good. Fifth column, good. Carry on Will, carry on.
By Concerned in Decatur
November 29, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
Rustylynn the fact that you have to “break ranks” to make a comment on your own proves your lack of individuality and ability to think as a single entity with original opinions. You should step outside the comfort zone more often.
By gttim
November 29, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this
“Most gays are pretty limp-wristed anyway. “
This has to be one of the most moronic comments I have ever seen posted, and I have seen plenty by the wingnuts who camp out on the AJC blog pages.
By BullochDawg
November 29, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
Gee. Kinda reminds me of the Larry King episode with George Bush Sr. It was supposed to be a Q & A of random questioners. “OK lets take our next random question…oh look, it’s George Stephanopoulos. You wanna answer his question?” If you’re going to use a “plant” in a debate, et al, at least have the dignity to disclose it as such. Turns out there were a few other “not so honest” guests on the debate; like the “undecided Log Cabin Republican”…who happens to be an Obamma supporter. Come on guys! Is it that victory at any cost/the end justify the means crap again?
By ThenWhat?
November 29, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this
Should CNN have known better? YES Does it really matter? No
And I think Kerr should have thought a little more abour his particular question: I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.
Not professional enough? Assuming that sexual orientation is not a choice or an affect in upbringing wouldn’t that suggest the same ratio of homosexual to straight men in the 40’s was about same today? And wouldn’t there have been a significant amount who would have fought and died along with their straight couterparts? Are we to say that “The Greatest Generation”, his generation, of soldiers were unprofessional? I think not and I believe that the system in place upholds a high level of professionalism in NOT making any disticntion of sexual orientation. LGB(not sure about T as far as showers/medical services go?) people will continue to serve with honor but with the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” will not receive any privelleges or lack of rights.
By Steve
November 29, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Straight Shooter- you are basically saying that our Allies are superior to us, because most of them have found a way to integrate gays into their units. Are you saying that our country can put a man on the moon, but our military would fall apart if they had to serve with “openly” gay members? That’s really a dim view of the U.S.- you should respect your country more than that! And news flash- there are already gay people there, it’s just that they are allowed to be fired if found out. Some of us call that discrimination. I could make a list of sex scandals that have plagued the military, and they would all be straight people.
By Will Jones
November 29, 2007 10:07 PM | Link to this
Here are some reviews by named Amazon.com reviewers. All patriots please look at “The New Pearl Harbor.”
Alpha Error/Beta Error: if you examine the information and believe it to be invalid you’ve wasted five or ten dollars (if the money’s a problem get it from a library or Google “David Ray Griffin” to read his peer-reviewed academic papers on-line); if the book persuades you, as this Veteran (who, after volunteering for the Regular Army in 1968 went on to outrank David Petraeus in West Point’s Class of ‘74, and for the last thirty years here in Atlanta has provided a Craftsman’s Lifetime Guarantee for all my work) knows it will: you can work to be worthy of the White and Black Whig Founders who risked all to bequeath to us the Greatest Nation in History. It is worth the effort. If lost to these fascist traitors America will be extremely difficult to re-“capture.”
5.0 out of 5 stars
Letting bad things happen in order to achieve great goals, April 3, 2004
By James S. Ackerman (Bloomington,, IN United States) - See all my reviews
Until reading this book I have despised any conspiracy theory that involved persons in any American administration doing harm to their fellow Americans. But Dr. Griffin, a noted professor at the prestigious Claremont School of Theology, has written a dispassionate study of the many inconsistencies that are involved in the official version of what happened on 9/11, our surveillance of Middle Eastern terrorist networks before that time, and our pursuit of the true perpetrators since then. For example, when Flight 11’s transponder went off at 8:20 a.m. and flight attendants reported at 8:21 a.m. that it had been hijacked when it turned 90 degrees to the south, F-16’s are routinely supposed to scramble and head it off within ten minutes—long before it reached the North Tower. There is an average of 100 scramblings per year. We went zero for three on 9/11. How could we not protect against a plane going directly towards the Pentagon or the White House? One starts this book, wanting with all one’s heart to believe that it was incompetence or surprise that day, but there are just too many other really strange things (about twenty more) noted by Griffin that warrant an even more complete investigation than what is going on now (April 2). Why? Because a lot of these elements, briefly captured by one media source or another, were swept away in our focus on the war and not brought back into the national consciousness. I must agree with the professor who wrote that “it is rare, indeed, that a book has this potential to become a force of history.” This slim book is a MUST READ! Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)
291 of 310 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars 9/11 and the True Nature of the Bush Administration, September 24, 2004 By Ren “Ren” (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) - See all my reviews
One of the most critical challenges confronting Americans today is to grasp the true nature of the current Bush administration. After four traumatic years in office, G.W. Bush and his handlers, have shown a taste for the aggressive accumulation, and exercise of power, that is unprecedented in U.S. history.
In spite of the seemingly irrefutable official government account of 9/11, the question of government complicity is now no longer in doubt. Three years of diligent civilian research has uncovered hidden facts that clearly show that 9/11 and the subsequent ‘war on terror’, are not what they appear to be! The Bush administration has effectively used, ironclad secrecy, outright deception, and a compliant mainstream media, to push an official story of 9/11 that effectively conceals the truth. It is not surprising then, that the most vigorous opponent of any type of post 9/11 investigation, was the Bush Whitehouse. What were they trying to hide? A few facts to consider:
a. Prior to the attacks, key alleged hijackers were protected from FBI field investigations, by FBI headquaters.
b. All hijacked plane passenger lists, are five passengers short of the official count, and contain no Arabic names.
c. The fires caused by planes on the upper floors of the twin towers effectively burned out, before the towers fell.
d. FDNY personnel escaping the WTC north tower, reported explosions going off as the tower collapsed.
e. The 40 story WTC building 7 collaped exactly like the twin towers without ever being struck by a plane.
f. All steel from the WTC collapses was hurriedly shipped out of the country without the usual investigations.
g. The FAA destroyed vital 9/11 tape recordings, instead of using this information in the usual investigations.
h. On 9/11/2001, federal agencies including FAA, NORAD, and FEMA, were running hijack simulations including some where planes strike buildings.
i. After 9/11, the Bush administration publicly stated that prior to the attacks, it had felt no need to guard against the threat of planes used as missiles.
j. The technology that will make it possible to use cell phones on commercial airliners, won’t be available until 2006.
k. The ‘war on terror’ decreases U.S. constitutional liberties, but increases terrorist activity.
Mr. Griffin’s ‘The New Pearl Harbor’, is a good place to start coming to grips with the difficult truths of 9/11. It does not go as deeply into the case as others have, but It treats the areas that it does cover objectively, methodically, and does not shy away from asking the tough questions that abound in this national tragedy. The more one coldly examines the available evidence from 9/11, massive deception and government involvement becomes clear. Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review › See all 228 customer reviews…